DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 455 626 EC 308 498

AUTHOR Thompson, Sandra; Thurlow, Martha

TITLE State Special Education Outcomes, 2001: A Report on State

Activities at the Beginning of a New Decade.

INSTITUTION National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN.;

Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.;

National Association of State Directors of Special

Education, Alexandria, VA.

SPONS AGENCY Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 2001-00-00

NOTE 49p.; For earlier edition, see ED 440 507. Supported by the

Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education

Programs (ED).

AVAILABLE FROM National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of

Minnesota, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Rd., Minneapolis,

MN 55455. Tel: 612-626-1530; Fax: 612-624-0879; Web site:

http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCEO.

PUB TYPE Reports Research (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Academic Standards; *Accountability; Alternative

Assessment; *Disabilities; *Educational Assessment;

Elementary Secondary Education; *Outcomes of Education;

State Programs; *Student Participation; Surveys

IDENTIFIERS *Testing Accommodations (Disabilities)

ABSTRACT

This report summarizes the eighth survey of state directors

of special education by the National Center on Educational Outcomes at the

University of Minnesota. Results include all 50 states and the Bureau of

Indian Affairs, American Samoa, and Palau. State directors report increased

participation rates of students with disabilities in state assessments and,

in many cases, improvement in performance as well. This first year of

alternative assessment implementation has been challenging, but most states

now have systems in place and are grappling with how to include the results

in their accountability systems in ways that show the progress of every

student toward state and district standards. Additional findings include:. (1)

more states listed positive consequences of inclusive standards, assessments,

and accountability, then listed negative consequences; (2) more than half

reported increases in participation rates; (3) two-thirds of directors

reported stable or increased performance levels of students with disabilities

on these tests; (4) most states are using portfolios or body of evidence

approaches for their alternate assessments; and (5) 25 states include

alternate assessment participants in all components of their accountability

system. Appendices include charts on student participation and performance

levels. (CR)
Stzt©

ipitdall

EducztAcm.

uutcom©o

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION jiE

hive of Educational Research and Improveent m UCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as

received from the person or organization

originating it..

CI Minor changes have been made to

improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this

document do not necessarily represent

official OERI position or policy.

NATIONAL

CENTER ON

EDUCATIONAL

OUTCOMES

In collaboration with:

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)

A Report on State

Activities at the

elinnini fo a

New Decade

04 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2001 State

Special

Education

Outcomes

A Report on State

Activities at the

Beginning ofa

New Decade

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the

beginning of a nnv decade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

3
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

The Mission of the National Center on

Educational Outcomes

NCEO Staff

Deb A. Albus

John S. Bielinski

Jane L. Krentz

Kristi K. Liu

Jane E. Minnema

Michael L. Moore

Rachel F. Quenemoen

Dorene L. Scott

Sandra J. Thompson

James E. Ysseldyke

Martha L. Thurlow,

Director

NCEO IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, THE

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and the

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). NCEO provides national leadership in assisting state and local education agencies in their development of policies

and practices that encourage and support the participation of students with disabilities in accountability systems and data collection efforts.

NCEO focuses its efforts in the following areas:

Research on the participation and performance of students with disabilities in

state and national assessments and other educational reform efforts.

Dissemination and Technical Assistance through publications, presentations,

technical assistance, and other networking activities.

Collaboration and Leadership to build on the expertise of others and to

develop leaders who can conduct needed research and provide additional

technical assistance.

The Center is supported primarily through a Cooperative Agreement

(#H326G000001) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special

Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Additional support for

targeted projects, including those on limited English proficient students, is provided by other federal and state agencies. The Center is affiliated with the Institute

on Community Integration in the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. Opinions or points of view expressed within this

document do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Education or

the Offices within it.

Additional copies of this report may be ordered for $15.00. Please write or call:

Publications Office

NCEO

350 Elliott Hall

75 E. River Road

Minneapolis, MN 55455

612/624-8561 Fax: 612/624-0879 http://education.umn.edu/NCE0

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

4

June, 2001
Acknowledgments jjj

Acknowledgments

A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT THAT CONTAINS INFORMATION FROM ALL 50 STATES IS ONLY

possible through the collective efforts of every state director and staff. Thanks to

the thoughtful responses of the directors and their designees who completed this

survey, we are able to share trends, accomplishments, and frustrations. We appreciate the willingness of many of the respondents to share their progress honestly,

knowing that we are all learning as we go and that progress is sometimes painfully

slow and tedious. The purpose of this report is not to check for compliance with

federal mandates nor to point fingers at states that have had a difficult time

moving their systems forward; it is simply to capture where states are now and to

provide information to help states view their own progress in light of other states.

State agency personnel are often barraged by requests for information. With the

value of each director's time in mind, we designed a survey that would capture

information not requested by other groups, a survey that could be completed

online in a minimal amount of time. We appreciate the time taken by respondents

to talk to people outside of special education, and we hope that this collaborative

effort increased awareness within and across state programs and departments.

For their support, special thanks go to:

David Malouf and Lou Danielson, of the Office of Special Education

Programs in the U.S. Department of Education;

Eileen Ahearn, of the National Association of State Directors of Special

Education; and

Michael Moore, online survey designer and communications director for

the National Center on Educational Outcomes.

2001 State Special Education Outcomes was prepared by Sandra Thompson and

Martha Thurlow, with support from research assistant Chris Boys.
iv NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

State Directors of Special Education

ALABAMA

Mabrey Whetstone

ALASKA

Greg Maloney

ARIZONA

Lynn Busenbark

ARKANSAS

Marcia Harding

CALIFORNIA

Alice Parker

COLORADO

Lorrie Harkness

CONNECTICUT

George Dowaliby

DELAWARE

Martha Brooks

FLORIDA

Shan Goff

GEORGIA

Philip Pickens

HAWAII

Debra Farmer

IDAHO

Jana Jones

ILLINOIS

Gordon Riffel

INDIANA

Robert Marra

IOWA

Brenda Oas

KANSAS

Alexa Pochowski

KENTUCKY

Mike Armstrong

LOUISIANA

Virginia Beridon

MAINE

David Stockford

MARYLAND

Carol Ann Baglin

MASSACHUSETTS

Marcia Mittnacht

MICHIGAN

Jacquelyn Thompson

MINNESOTA

Norena Hale

MISSISSIPPI

Ed Kelly

MISSOURI

Melodie Friedebach

MONTANA

Robert Runkel

NEBRASKA

Gary Sherman

NEVADA

Gloria Dopf

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Debra Grabill

NEW JERSEY

Barbara Gantwerk

NEW MEXICO

Robert Pasternack

NEW YORK

Lawrence Gloeckler

NORTH CAROLINA

Lowell Harris

NORTH DAKOTA

Robert Rutten

OHIO

John Herner

OKLAHOMA

Darla Griffin

OREGON

Steve Johnson

PENNSYLVANIA

Fran Warkowski

RHODE ISLAND

Thomas Dipaola

SOUTH CAROLINA

Susan Durant

SOUTH DAKOTA

Deborah Barnett

TENNESSEE

Joseph Fisher

TEXAS

Etsgene Lenz

UTAH

Mae Taylor

VERMONT

Dennis Kane

VIRGINIA

Doug Cox

WASHINGTON

Douglas Gill

WEST VERGINIA

Dee Bodkins

6

WISCONSIN

Stephanie Petska

WYOMING

Rebecca Walk

AMERICAN SAMOA

Jane French

BUREAU OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS

Angelita Felix

DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE

Lorrie Sebestyen

(acting)

DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

Ann Gay

GUAM

Vince Leon Guerrero

MARIANA ISLANDS

Suzanne Lizama

(acting)

MARSHALL ISLANDS

Kanchi Hosia

MICRONESIA

Makir Keller

PALAU

Evans Imetengel

PUERTO RICO

Maria Teresa Morales

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

Belinda West-O'Neal

These were the state

directors of special education in April 2001 when the

survey was conducted.
Executive Summary

Executive Summary

THIS REPORT SUMMARIZES THE EIGHTH SURVEY OF STATE DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCAdon by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University

of Minnesota. Results include all 50 states and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, American Samoa, and Palau. The purpose of this report is to capture the state of the

nation as states build the participation and performance of students with disabilities

in state and district standards, assessments, and accountability systems, and to

provide information to help states view their own progress in light of other states.

State directors report increased participation rates of students with disabilities in

state assessments, and in many cases, improvement in performance as well. This first

year of alternate assessment implementation has been challenging, but most states

now have systems in place and are grappling with how to include the results in their

accountability systems in ways that show the progress of every student toward state

and district standards.

Among the more striking findings are the following:

More states listed positive consequences of inclusive standards, assessments,

and accountability than listed negative consequences.

More than half of the states reported increases in participation rates.

In two-thirds of the states, directors reported stable or increased performance

levels of students with disabilities on state tests.

Nearly 60% of states keep track of the use of accommodations, and half of

these reported increased use of accommodations.

Most states are using a portfolio or body of evidence approach for their

alternate assessments.

While students may use accommodations whether or not they are approved,

nearly half of the states do not report the scores of students who use nonapproved accommodations.

Twenty-five states include alternate assessment participants in all components

of their accountability systems.

A positive theme throughout this report is that the benefits of inclusive assessment

and accountability systems are beginning to outweigh the challenges, and many

states are taking positive approaches as they face the challenges ahead.
vi NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments in

State Directors of Special Education iv

Executive Summary

Overview of 2001 Survey 1

The Bottom Line: Consequences of Inclusive Standards, Assessments,

and Accountability 3

Assessment Participation and Performance 5

Participation 5

Performance 8

Assessment Accommodations 9

Information on Use 9

Eligible Students 9

Data Collection Procedures 10

Alternate Assessments 11

Alternate Assessment Stakeholders 11

Standards Assessed 12

Alternate Assessment Approach 12

Performance Measures 13

Performance Descriptors 14

Scoring Alternate Assessments 15

Reporting 16

Accountability 18

Current Issues 21

Out-of-Level Testing 21

LEP Students with Disabilities 22

Diploma Options 22

IEPs and State Assessments 23

Referrals for Special Education Services 25

Emerging Issues and Future Challenges 26

0
Table of Contents vii

Appendix A: State Assessment Participation and Performance Summary Table 27

Appendix B: Accommodations Summary Table 29

Appendix C: Alternate Assessment Summary Table 31

Appendix D: Reporting Summary Table 34

Appendix E: Accountability Summary Table 36

Appendix F: Current Issues Summary Table 38

o
Overview

Overview of 2001 Survey

THIS REPORT MARKS THE EIGHTH TIME OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS THAT THE NATIONAL

Center on Educational Outcomes has collected information from state directors of

special education about the participation of students with disabilities in education

reform. Reform efforts continue to evolve at a rapid pace. The purpose of this

report is to capture the progress of states as they move toward assessment and

accountability systems that include every student.

It is clear from the results of this survey that states are working hard to increase

accountability for all students. As described in many NCEO publications and

elsewhere, there are several important reasons why all students need to be included in assessment and accountability systemsto:

promote high expectations

provide an accurate picture of education

allow all students to benefit from reforms

enable accurate comparisons to be made

avoid unintended consequences of exclusion

meet legal requirements

The 2001 Special Education Outcomes Survey focuses on the implications of

educational reform within the context of the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Results are presented in eight

sections:

Consequences of Inclusive Standards, Assessments, and Accountability

Assessment Participation and Performance

Assessment Accommodations

Alternate Assessments

Reporting

Accountability

Current Issues

Emerging Issues

Participants in the 2001 survey included state directors of special education from

all 50 states and 11 federal jurisdictions that abide by the provisions of IDEA

(referred to in this report as "unique states"). Responses to the survey were

gathered online and via fax. To view the survey instrument, go to http://

education.umn.edu/NCEO/NCEOSurveys/SpEdDirectors_Survey.htm. Some

state directors designated other state officials to complete the survey, and multiple

respondents, including state assessment and accountability personnel, completed

some surveys.

Eleven Unique

States

American Samoa

Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA)

Department of Defense

District of Columbia

Guam

Mariana Islands

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Palau

Puerto Rico

U.S.Virgin Islands
This report at the beginning of a new decade

reveals many positive

findings in state special

education outcomes.

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Once compiled, drafts of tables were sent to state directors for verification.

Overall, responses were obtained from all 50 states and from the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, American Samoa, and Palau.

As you will read in this report, state directors are reporting increased participation

rates of students with disabilities in state assessments, and in many cases, improvement in performance as well. This first year of alternate assessment implementation has been challenging, but most states now have their systems in place and are

grappling with how to include the results in their accountability systems in ways

that show the progress of every student toward state and district standards. A

positive theme throughout this report is that the benefits of inclusive assessment

and accountability systems are beginning to outweigh the barriers, and many

states are taking positive approaches as they face the challenges ahead.

1 1
The Bottom Line: Consequences

The Bottom Line: Consequences

of Inclusive Standards,

Assessments, and Accountability

"SO, HOW'S IT GOING THERE THEN?" A PHRASE OFTEN HEARD IN THE MIDWEST

reflects the importance of the bottom line. The "bottom line" for inclusive assessment and accountability is whether the time and effort (the costs) are worth the

benefits. We asked respondents to think about inclusive standards, assessment, and

accountability as a whole, and to evaluate the bottom line.

The states gave very positive responses when asked to describe consequences that

had been observed or heard about as a result of the participation of students with

disabilities in state standards, assessments, and accountability systems. As one

director stated, "The benefits seem to outweigh the negative consequences."

Figure 1 lists positive consequences identified by 40 states. The unique states did

not list any consequences.

Figure I . Positive Consequences of the Participation of Students with Disabilities in

Standards, Assessments, and Accountability

Increased access to the general curriculum

Number of States

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

As one director stated,

"The benefits seem to

outweigh the negative

consequences."

14 16

Increased inclusion in accountability system

More rigorous education

Increased participation in state assessments

Increased academic expectations

Improved performance on some state assessments

Increased general and special education networking

In addition to those listed in Figure 1, at least two states identified each of these

positive consequences:

Accommodations for students receiving special education services have

allowed these students to pursue a regular high school diploma.

Higher level of awareness of parents about standards and assessments has

emerged, as well as increased expectations for students.

12
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Increased use of accommodations, including assistive technology, has

occurred.

Teacher attention to student achievement of skills included on assessments

has grown.

District awareness of educational issues facing students with disabilities has

increased.

State and district test scores did not drop significantly with the inclusion of

students with disabilities.

Greater effort is being made to include special education personnel in staff

development that addresses instruction toward standards.

States also recognize that there have been some challenges and negative consequences as students with disabilities are included in standards, assessments, and

accountability systems. Figure 2 lists the primary negative consequences described

by state directors in 30 states.

Figure 2. Negative Consequences of the Participation of Students with Disabilities

in Standards,Assessments, and Accountability Systems

State assessment too difficult for some students

Students with disabilities make schools look less effective

More paperwork and time

Students with disabilities are traumatized by taking tests

Too many students are identified for alternate assessments

Students with disabilities may not graduate

Students with disabilities cannot access or reach standards

Number of States

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Additional negative consequences, each identified by at least two states include;

Teachers, administrators, and parents are frustrated because they do not

fully understand the system.

Some students with IEPs may always perform at the "unsatisfactory" level;

other measures will be needed to determine student growth.

There are still students not being adequately addressed.

Misleading reports of student progress.
Participation and Performance

Assessment Participation and

Performance

BOTH THE PARTICIPATION OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN ASSESSMENTS AND THEIR

performance are important indicators of the progress states are making. State by

state responses on changes in participation and performance are provided in

Appendix A.

Participation

Over half of the regular states reported an increase in the test participation rates of

students with disabilities on their state assessments (see Figure 3). Several directors attribute this increase to alternate assessment participation by students who

have been excluded in the past. An additional 26% of the directors said that the

test participation rates had remained about the same, and only one state reported

a decrease in participation rates. The remaining six states were not able to make a

comparison across years. Four of these states said that their assessment system was

so new that comparison data were not yet available. In addition, one unique state

reported an increase in participation rates and two reported that this information

is not yet available.

Figure 3. Change in Participation Levels of Students with Disabilities on State

Assessments

comparison data not

available

12%

about the same

26%

lower than previous

years

2%

_J

higher than previous

years

60%

All students are included in state assessments in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,

Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode

Island, and Vermont (see Figure 4). The remaining states allow assessment exclusion for a variety of reasons, including parent refusal, medically fragile, emotional

1 4

Over half the states

reported increases in

participation rates, and

nearly one-third noted

increased levels of performance in students with

disabilities.
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

distress, homebound, hospitalized, limited English proficient, and absent on test

days (see Table 1).

Table I . Reasons Allowed by State Policy for Students to be Excused from Assessment

Participation

State

Parent

Refusal

Medically

Fragile

Emotional

Distress Homebound Hospitalized

Limited

English

Proficient

Absent

on Test

Days Other Alabama

Arizona

California

Colorado

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Iowa

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Nevada

New

Hampshire

New York

North

Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South

Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

1 5
Participation and Performance

Table I. Reasons Allowed by State Policy for Students to be Excused from Assessment

Participation (continued)

Uni ue States

State

Parent

Refusal

Medically

Fragile

Emotional

Distress Homebound Hospitalized

Limited

English

Proficient

Absent

on Test

Days Other

American

Samoa

Bureau of

Indian

Affairs

Department

of Defense*

District of

Columbia*

Guam*

Mariana

Islands*

Marshall

Islands*

Micronesia*

Palau

Puerto

Rico*

U.S. Virgin

Islands*

Totals 12 9 6 6 8 17 10 15

"` No Response

Figure 4. States with No Students Excused from Assessment Participation

0 Some Students Excused

No Students Excused

MD

The most frequent reasons allowed for exclusion are having limited English

proficiency and parent refusal. "Other" includes seven states that allow exclusion

for any reason deemed appropriate by a student's IEP team. One director commented that "in theory" no one is excused, but "in reality" there are students

who are absent and do not make up the tests.

16
8 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Performance

Test performance levels of students with disabilities on state assessments have

increased in over one fourth of the regularstates (see Figure 5). One state director commented that, using data over time, the state found that students with

IEPs showed improvement in all content areas assessed. Another director was

surprised to find that in third grade testing, students with disabilities performed

as well or better than general education students in some jurisdictions. Aboutone

third of the state directors report stable performance levels. Four states reported

that the performance level of students with disabilities on state assessments has

decreased, and two of these states attribute the change to greater participation of

lower performing students. Fourteen states are not able to compare performance

levels across years, either because data are available for only one year, or because

performance data of students with disabilities have not yet been disaggregated.

None of the unique states is able to report performance trends.

Figure S. Change in Performance Levels of Students with Disabilities on State

Assessments

comparison data not

available

28%

lower than previous

years

8%

about the same

36%

17

higher than previous

years

28%
Accommodations

Assessment Accommodations

ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDE STUDENTS ACCESS TO ASSESSMENTS. As MORE STUDENTS ARE

included in assessments, states often become interested in identifying how many

students are using accommodations. State by state responses to questions about

changes in use of accommodations, students eligible for accommodations, and

data collection procedures are provided in Appendix B.

Information on Use

Nearly sixty percent of the regular states keep track of the use of accommodations

during state assessmentsabout half of these report an increase in use and the

other half report stable use (see Figure 6). Two directors attribute growth in use

to increased awareness and understanding by parents and educators. One unique

state reported an increase, also due to increased awareness; two unique states do

not keep track of accommodations use.

Figure 6. Change in Accommodations Use by Students with Disabilities on State

Assessments

state does not track

42%

About half of the states

that keep track of the use

of accommodations report

an increase.

higher than previous years

30%

about the same

28%

Eligible Students

There are 14 states in which assessment accommodations are available for any

student with a need regardless of whether the student has an IEP or a 504 plan

(see Figure 7). For example, Colorado provides assessment accommodations for

any child as long as the accommodations are provided during instruction at least

three months prior to the assessment. Some states, however, may allow only a

subset of accommodations for students without disabilities.
I 0 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

All states, including the three unique states that responded to the survey, reported

that students receiving special education services are eligible for assessment

accommodations. All but two states also reported that students with 504 Accommodation Plans are eligible for assessment accommodations.

Figure 7. States with Assessment Accommodations Available for All Students

0 Available for All

Data Collection Procedures

Over two thirds of regular states (35 states) reported that accommodations are

recorded either on the test itself or on a form completed at the time of testing.

Some states document the type of accommodation a student uses. For example,

Massachusetts has its most commonly used accommodations number-coded on

the test form with a code for "other." Other states (usually those using normreferenced tests) record whether an accommodation is considered standard or

non-standard by the test publisher, but do not record the specific accommodation

used.

Six states code accommodation use directly from a student's IEP to the test form.

For example, in Delaware a paper form is completed at a student's IEP meeting

that indicates all of the accommodations the student will have when tested. Data

from this form are then entered electronically into the state database and used to

place special test orders (e.g., large print), and to make sure students receive the

accommodations they need on test day (e.g., extended time). None of the respondents from the unique states record test accommodation use.

1 9
Alternate Assessments

Alternate Assessments

BEGINNING IN 1997, NCEO MAINTAINED AN ONLINE ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT SURVEY.

States were able to check at any time what other states were doing and were able

to frequently update their own information. As states moved into the July 1, 2000

implementation phase, NCEO phased out its ongoing alternate assessment survey,

and moved questions on alternate assessment into this survey of states. The

information in this report is the third written summary of the status of states as

they move from initial implementation to the use of alternate assessment results.

State by state information is provided in Appendix C.

While NCEO did not ask directly whether states had alternate assessments, the

composite information on stakeholders, standards assessed, performance measures

and descriptors, and scoring procedures suggest that nearly all states are working

on some aspect of their alternate assessments.

Alternate Assessment Stakeholders

Every state involved some type of stakeholder group in the development of their

alternate assessments. All stakeholder groups included state and local special

education personnel (see Table 2). In addition, most states included state and

local assessment directors and coordinators, local school administrators, related

service personnel, and general educators. Nearly all states also included parents

and advocates, and a few included students and adults with disabilities. Other

stakeholders included university personnel, test developers, and a variety of additional technical assistance providers.

Table 2. Stakeholders Involved in the Development of State Alternate Assessments

Regular States Unique States*

State special education personnel 50 1 Local special educators 50 1 State assessment personnel 49 1 Parents 44 0

Local school administrators 44 0

Local related service personnel 41 0

Local assessment coordinators 39 1 Advocates 34 0

Local general educators 31 0

Adults with disabilities 8 0

Students 6 0

Other 8 3

*3 unique states responded

Nearly all states have

determined the basic

elements of their alternate

assessments.
Nearly half of the states

use a portfolio or body of

evidence as their alternate

assessment approach.

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Standards Assessed

Nearly all state alternate assessments assess the same standards as general

assessments either by expanding state standards, finking a set of functional skills

back to standards, or assessing standards plus an additional set of functional skills.

Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Ohio assess functional skills only, with no link

to state standards. Iowa links the alternate assessment to local standards. Texas

and Wisconsin allow IEP teams to determine what their individualized alternate

assessments will assess. Of the unique state respondents, American Samoa links

functional skills to standards, while Palau and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are

uncertain, either because no decision has been made or an alternate assessment

has not been administered.

Table 3 shows how the alignment of alternate assessments with standards has

evolved since 1999. Several states that in 1999 indicated they were developing

alternate assessments based on a special education curriculum no longer give that

response. Instead, they have moved to responses indicating some connection

between the alternate assessment and state standards.

Table 3. Standards Addressed by Alternate Assessments: Change Over Time

Year

State

Standards

(May be

Expanded)

Functional

Skills Linked

Back to State

Standards

State

Standards Plus

Functional

Skills

Functional

Skills Only, No

Link to State

Standards

Other or

Uncertain

1999* 19 (38%) 1 ( 2%) 16 (32%) 24 (48%)

2000** 28 (56%) 3 ( 6%) 7 (14%) 9 (18%) 3 ( 6%)

2001*** 19 (38%) 15 (30%) 9 (18%) 4 ( 8%) 3 ( 6%)

Note: Entries are number and percentage of states.

*Data are from Thompson, S., Erickson, R., Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Callender, S. (1999). Status of the

states in the development of alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 31). Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

** Data are from Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status as IDEA

alternate assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis Report 35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,

National Center on Educational Outcomes.

*** All numbers and percentages are based on 50 states.

Alternate Assessment Approach

State approaches to collecting alternate assessment data continue to reflect a

variety of methods (see Table 4). Approaches have evolved as alternate assessments have been piloted and refined. In 2001, nearly half of the states indicated

that they use some type of portfolio or body of evidence, nine states have selected

a checklist or rating scale approach, and three states use an analysis of IEP goals.

In addition, some states have selected specific performance-based assessments, a
Alternate Assessments

combination of approaches, or they do not use any particular approach, allowing

IEP teams to determine how they will collect data on individual students. Among

the respondents from unique states, American Samoa uses a checklist, while Palau

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are uncertain, either because no decision has

been made or an alternate assessment has not been administered.

Table 4.Alternate Assessment Approaches in 2000 and 2001

Year

Portfolio/Body of

Evidence Checklist IEP Analysis Other

State Has Not

Decided

2000* 28 (56%) 4 ( 8%) 5 (10%) 6 (12%) 7 (14%)

2001** 24 (48%) 9 (18%) 3 ( 6%) 12 (24%) 2 ( 4%)

Note: Entries are number and percentage of states.

* Data are from Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status as IDEA alternate

assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis Report 35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National

Center on Educational Outcomes.

** All numbers and percentages are based on 50 states.

Performance Measures

States have developed a variety of performance measures to use in reporting the

performance of alternate assessment participants as a group. Some are measures of

student performance, while others are measures of system performance (see Figure

8). State responses here do not tell us whether they use a single performance

descriptor or "score" that combines many measures holistically, or whether they

score each dimension and then combine all of the scores to determine a student's

level of performance.

All states use some measure of student performance for their alternate assessments, with about 80% measuring level of skill or competence. Nearly half of the

states measure degree of progress in addition to or instead of skill/competence.

Additional measures used by several states include level of independence and

ability to generalize. "Other" includes three states that allow IEP teams to determine performance measures. American Samoa, a unique state, measures skill and

level of independence.

About 20 states measure levels of staff support, variety of instructional settings,

and appropriateness (defined as age appropriate and challenging for students).

Twelve states measure participation in general education settings, and nine states

measure parent satisfaction. Eight states do not measure system performance as

part of their alternate assessment.

2
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure 8.Alternate Assessment Student and System Performance Measures

Student Performance Measures

Number of States

0 10 20 30 40 50

Skill/competence

-I Independence

Progress

Ability to generalize

Other L

.1

Variety of settings

Staff support

Appropriateness

General education participation

Parent satisfaction

No system measures

0

System Performance Measures

10

Number of States

20 30 40 50

" Unique states are not reflected in this figure

Performance Descriptors

About a third of the states have chosen the same performance descriptors for their

alternate assessment as for the general assessment; more have different performance indicators for their alternate and general assessments (see Figure 9). Three

states use the same performance descriptors plus different ones. Wisconsin scores

all alternate assessment participants as "prerequisite." Nine states and all three

unique state respondents have not yet decided on performance descriptors.

23
Alternate Assessments

Figure 9.Alternate Assessment Performance Descriptors

State has not decided

18%

no performance levels

2%

same + different

6%

different from general

assessment

38%

same as general

assessment

36%

Scoring Alternate Assessments

Most states have teachers scoring the alternate assessments of their own students

(see Figure 10). Teachers from other districts, sometimes in collaboration or with

direction from test companies, score alternate assessments in about a quarter of

the states. Relatively few states have other teachers from a student's district or the

state agency score alternate assessments. A variety of other scorers (e.g., IEP

teams) are used in 10 states. Six states and all three unique state respondents have

not decided how they will score their alternate assessments.

Figure 10. Alternate Assessment Scorers

Number of States

0 5 10 15 20 25

Student's teacher

Teachers from other districts

Test contractor

Teachers within student's district

Other

Undecided

2 4
Almost all states report

students using approved

accommodations, but just

over half report the scores

of students who use nonapproved accommodations.

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Reporting

STATES INDICATED WHETHER THEY REPORT THE ASSESSMENT SCORES OF STUDENTS WHO

take tests in various wayswith approved accommodations, non-approved accommodations (sometimes called modifications or non-standard administrations),

alternate assessments, and out-of-level testsand whether students who were not

assessed are included in reports (see Table 5). State by state responses are provided in Appendix D.

Almost all states report students using approved accommodations, but just over

half report the scores of students who use non-approved accommodations. About

the same number of states report scores of alternate assessment participants;

however, about one third of states have not yet made a decision about how to

report these scores. Of the 17 states that use out-of-level tests, 13 report the

scores of students who take tests designed for students at a lower grade level.

Some states give a score of "1" or "0" to students who are not tested (e.g.,

students who are absent on test days are counted and given the lowest possible

score). Of the unique state respondents, Palau reported that they are still working

on reporting decisions, American Samoa reports scores in most areas, and the

Bureau of Indian Affairs reports scores on BIA funded schools in a variety of

formats.

Table 5. Reporting Alternatives

Score Reported

Score Not

Reported Other Not Decided

Regular

States

Unique

States

Regular

States

Unique

States

Regular

States

Unique

States

Regular

States

Unique

States

Approved 49 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 Accommodations (98%) ( 2%)

Non-approved 27 2 7 0 14 0 2 1 Accommodations (54%) (14%) (28%) ( 4%)

Alternate 27 1 3 0 4 0 16 2

Assessments (54%) ( 6%) ( 8%) (32%) Out-of-Level 13 1 2 0 33* 1 2 1 Tests (26%) ( 4%) (66%) ( 4%)

Not Tested 8** 0 28 2 9... 0 5 1 (16%) (56%) (18%) (10%)

*These states do not administer out-of-level tests

** Untested students given score of "1" or "0"

*** All students are tested

25
Reporting

Most states aggregate the scores of assessment participants using accommodations

they view as not changing the test (i.e., approved accommodations) with those of

all other assessment participants (see Table 6). Only half of the states that report

the scores of students using non-approved accommodations aggregate those

scores; other states report scores of these students separately or at the lowest score

level. Of the states that have scoring systems in place for alternate assessments,

most report scores separately from those of general assessment participants. States

reporting scores of out-of-level test participants are split in their decisions to

aggregate or report scores separately. Unique states show reporting decisions

similar to those of other states.

Table 6. How Scores are Reported

Score Aggregated

with All

Separate Score

Report

Given Lowest

Score

Aggregated

Regular

States

and

Unique

States

Given Score

Zero

Aggregated

Regular

States

of

and

Unique

States

Regular

States

Unique

States

Regular

States

Unique

States

Approved

Accommodations 47 1 2 1 0 0 0 0

(n = 49) (96%) ( 4%)

Non-approved

Accommodations 13 1 12 1 2 0 1 0

(n = 27) (48%) (44%) ( 7%) ( 4%)

Alternate

Assessments 10 0 20 1 0 0 0 0

(n = 27) (37%) (74%)

Out-of-Level

Tests 8 1 6 0 1 0 0 0

(n = 13) (62%) (46%) ( 8%)
In 25 states, all students

with disabilitiesincluding alternate assessment

participantsare included in all components

of the accountability

system.

El NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Accountability

NEARIN ALL STATES HAVE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS THAT INCLUDE ASSESSMENT PERFORmance. According to state directors, between one third and two thirds of the

states also include dropout rates, attendance, suspension rates, and graduation

rates (see Appendix E). While states may include students with disabilities who

participate in general assessments (with accommodations as needed), they do not

necessarily include them in other components (for example, alternate assessment

participants are less likely to be included in measures of graduation rates than are

other students with disabilities). In 25 states, all students with disabilities

including alternate assessment participantsare included in all components of the

accountability system (see Figure 11).

Assessment performance of alternate assessment participants is included as a

component of the accountability systems in just over half of the states (58%).

Fifteen states have not made a decision about how to include alternate assessment

participants in their accountability systems (see Table 7).

Figure 0 O. States in Which All Students with Disabilities are Oncluded in A00

Components of the Accountability System

2

0 All Students in Accountability System
Accountability

Table 7. Components of State Accountability Systems

State

Total Number of

Components

Number that Include

Students with

Disabilities

Number that Include

Alternate

Assessment

Participants

Alabama 1 1 1 Alaska 4 4 1 Arizona 2 2 2

Arkansas 5 5 5

California 3 Undecided Undecided

Colorado 5 5 5

Connecticut 4 4 4

Delaware 1 1 1 Florida 5 5 4

Georgia 2 Undecided Undecided

Hawaii 5 5 5

Idaho 5 4 4

Illinois 3 3 Undecided

Indiana 3 3 Undecided

Iowa 3 4 4

Kansas 5 5 5

Kentucky 4 4 4

Louisiana 4 4 2

Maine 1 1 1 Maryland 5 5 1 Massachusetts 1 2 Undecided

Michigan 1 1 1 Minnesota 4 4 4

Mississippi 1 1 1 Missouri 4 4 Undecided

Montana 4 Undecided Undecided

North Carolina 3 3 2

North Dakota 4 1 Undecided

Nebraska 5 5 5

Nevada 5 5 5

New Hampshire 1 1 1 New Jersey 5 5 5

New Mexico 4 4 4

New York 2 2 Undecided

Ohio 5 5 Undecided

Oklahoma Undecided Undecided Undecided

Oregon 4 4 4

Pennsylvania 2 2 Undecided

Rhode Island 1 1 1 South Carolina 5 1 1 South Dakota Undecided Undecided Undecided

Tennessee 1 1 1 Texas 5 5 5

Utah 1 1 1 Virginia 1 1 1 Vermont 2 2 2
20 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table 7. Components of State Accountability Systems (continued)

State

Total Number of

Components

Number that Include

Students with

Disabilities

Number that Include

Alternate

Assessment

Participants Washington Undecided Undecided Undecided

West Virginia 4 4 3

Wisconsin 5 4 4

Wyoming Undecided Undecided Undecided

Uni ue States

American Samoa Undecided Undecided Undecided

Bureau of Indian

Affairs

5 5 Undecided

Department of

Defense*

District of Columbia*

Guam*

Mariana Islands*

Marshall Islands*

Micronesia*

Palau Undecided Undecided Undecided

Puerto Rico*

U.S. Virgin Islands*

Bold states include all students with disabilities in all components of a state's accountability system. * No Response

29
Current Issues

Current Issues

As STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ARE INCLUDED IN ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

systems, a variety of issues emerge. Some of these have been recorded in past

reports (such as out-of-level testing) while others are new (such as assessing

students with disabilities who have limited English proficiency). State by state

responses on the issues are provided in Appendix F.

Out-of-level Testing

The number of states using out-of-level tests as an assessment participation option

has increased again (see Table 8). Only one of the five states that used out-oflevel testing in 1997 no longer allows it (Kansas). Similarly, just one of the ten

states that used out-of-level testing in 1999 no longer allows it (Montana). None

of the unique states reported using out-of-level testing.

Table 8. States Using Out-of-LevelTests-Change from 1997 to 2001

The number of states

using out-of-level tests as

an assessment participation option has increased

again.

199r 1999** 2001

1. Alabama 1. Arizona 1. Alabama

2. Connecticut 2. California 2. Arizona

3. Georgia 3. Connecticut 3. California

4. Kansas 4. Georgia 4. Connecticut

5. Louisiana 5. Louisiana 5. Delaware

6. Mississippi 6. Georgia

7. Montana 7. Hawaii

8. South Carolina 8. Iowa

9. Vermont 9. Louisiana

10. West Virginia 10. Mississippi

11. North Dakota

12. Oregon

13. South Carolina

14. Texas

15. Utah

16. Vermont

17. West Virginia

*Data are from Thurlow, M., Seyfarth, A., Scott, & Ysseldyke, J. (1997). State assessment policies on

participation and accommodations for students with disabilities: 1997 update (Synthesis Report 29).

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

**Data are from Thurlow, M., House, A., Boys, C. Scott, D, & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State participation and

accommodation policies for students with disabilities: 1999 update. (Synthesis Report 33). Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

LEP Students with Disabilities

There are increasing numbers of students who are at risk in our educational

system primarily because they have not yet gaMed proficiency in the English

language, and a certain percentage of these students can be expected to experience disabilities and receive special education services. Approximately one-third of

the states disaggregate either or both participation and performance data for

limited English proficient students with disabilities (see Table 9). While most

states do not disaggregate data for these students, several states indicated that

they could if needed, or that they will be able to do so in the future.

Table 9. States that Disaggregate Assessment Data for LEP Students with Disabilities

Participation

Data Only

Performance

Data Only

Participation and

Performance Data No Disaggregation

Alaska

Alabama

Arkansas

Delaware

Iowa

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Kansas

Louisiana

Maryland

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

North Carolina

New Mexico

Nevada

New York

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Wyoming

Arizona

Connecticut

Georgia

Nevada

Montana

New Hampshire

Utah

Virginia

California

Colorado

Florida

Kentucky

Massachusetts

Maine

New Jersey

Tennessee

Texas

Vermont

4 states (8%) 4 states (8%) 10 states (20%) 26 states (52%)

Unique States

Palau American Samoa

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Note: No information or no response from Hawaii, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island,

Washington, Department of Defense, District of Columbia, Guam, Mariana Islands, Marshall Islands,

Micronesia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands.

Diploma Options

The diploma options that are available to students with disabilities continues to

be an issue with which states are struggling, especially as more and more states

initiate high stakes testing. Forty-two states offer a state level diploma for successful school completion (see Table 10), whereas approximately 25 states offer a

regular diploma to alternate assessment participants. Many states also offer a

certificate of completion, attendance, or achievement; some states offer more than

one of these options but only eight states have special education diplomas. Nearly

all of these options are available for alternate assessment participants within states

that offer them. Some states identified other options such as a vocational diploma

and advanced studies diploma. Eight states are still deciding what type of exit

31
Current Issues

document to award alternate assessment participants. None of the unique states

reported offering a regular diploma to alternate assessment participants.

Table 10. Diploma Options Across States

Exit Documents Available in State

Available to Alternate

Assessment Participants

Regular Unique Regular Unique

Regular Diploma 42 (84%)* 1 26 (52%) 0

Special Education Diploma 8 (16%) 0 8 (16%) 0

Certificate of Completion 20 (40%) 1 17 (34%) 1 Certificate of Attendance 11 (22%) 1 12 (24%) 1 Certificate of Achievement 4 (8%) 0 3 (6%) 0

Other 11 (22%) 1 7 (14%) 0

Undecided 1 (2%) 0 8 (16%) 1 * Remaining states have local diplomas or are revising their diploma options.

I EPs and State Assessments

Getting information about standards and assessments to IEP teams is another

challenge for states. Nearly every state director reported that information is sent

to local special education directors who then pass it on to IEP team members (see

Figure 12). In addition, almost half of the states send information directly to IEP

team members. Most states also offer workshops and other training sessions and

provide information about standards and assessment on the Internet. The unique

states reported similar dissemination strategies.

When asked how content standards are addressed on IEPs in each state, over half

of the state directors responded that IEP goals are aligned or referenced to state

standards (see Figure 13). In some states, such as Alaska, Kentucky, and Montana,

IEP teams are encouraged to use performance standards as a basis for creating IEP

goals and objectives. Other states require IEP goals to address state standards

(e.g., Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, New Mexico). Some of these requirements are

addressed in policy and others, such as Illinois, address the requirements in law as

follows:

A statement of measurable annual goals that reflect consideration of the

State Goals for Learning and the Illinois Learning Standards...as well as

benchmarks or short-term objectives...related to: Meeting the child's

needs that result from the child's disability, to enable the child to be

involved in and progress in the general curriculum.

Ten state directors responded that addressing standards on IEPs is a local decision. Two state IEPs address standards for alternate assessment participants only.

Another two states address standards only through the assessment decisions on

their IEPs. One state attaches a checklist addressing standards to each student's

IEP. The unique states are just beginning work in this area.

3 °
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure I 2. How IEP Teams Learn about Standards and Assessments

Info sent to local special education directors

Workshops, training sessions

0

Number of States

10 20 30 40 50

I I

Internet

-I Info sent to IEP teams

Other

J

Figure I 3. How Standards are Addressed on IEPs

IEP goals aligned/referenced to state standards

Local decision, no policy, or new policy/guidelines in progress

Number of States

i

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

I --A

_ Standards addressed on IEP for alt. assess. participants only

IEP addresses standards through assessment decisions

Checklist addressing standards is attached to the IEP

No response or don't know

3 °J
Current Issues tia

Referrals for Special Education Services

Anticipated increases in the number of referrals for special education services are

an issue especially in states with high stakes assessments. Of the 22 states that track

referral rates, 9 reported referral rates to be about the same or lower than in

previous years, and 13 states reported an increase (see Figure 14). One unique

state reported a lower referral rate and another reported that rates stayed about

the same.

Figure 14. Change in Referral Rates for Special Education Services

comparison data not

available

56%

lower than previous

years

2%

higher than previous

years

26%

about the same

16%

3 4
Emerging issues most

frequently identified

include inclusive reporting, inclusive accountability, and gray areas of

assessment.

NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Emerging Issues and Future

Challenges

MANY CHALLENGES REMAIN FOR STATES AS THEY CONTINUE TO INCLUDE STUDENTS WITH

disabilities in state assessments. State directors identify a wide range of emerging

issues and challenges (see Figure 15). The most frequently mentioned are inclusive reporting, inclusive accountability, and the gray areas of assessment (referring

to the inability of assessments to include all students appropriately). "Other"

includes system stakes, participation decisions, and professional development.

Figure 15. Emerging Issues

Inclusive reporting

Inclusive accountability

Gray areas of assessment

Linking standards and instruction to assessment

Alternate assessment

Unintended consequences

0

Number of States

5 10 15 20

Student stakes

LEP students L

Other

3
Appendix A m

Appendix A:

State Assessment Participation

and Performance Summary

Table

State

Change in Participation

Rates Change in Performance Levels

Alabama Higher Data Forthcoming

Alaska Data Forthcoming Data Forthcoming

Arizona Higher Same

Arkansas Higher Data Forthcoming

California Higher Higher

Colorado Same Higher

Connecticut Higher Same

Delaware Data Forthcoming Higher

Florida Higher Same

Georgia Higher Same

Hawaii Higher Data Forthcoming

Idaho Higher Higher

Illinois Same Same

Indiana Higher Same

Iowa Higher Same

Kansas Higher Data Forthcoming

Kentucky Same Same

Louisiana Higher Higher

Maine Higher Lower

Maryland Same Same

Massachusetts Same Same

Michigan Data Forthcoming Higher

Minnesota Same Same

Mississippi Same Data Forthcoming

Missouri Data Forthcoming Higher

Montana Data Forthcoming Data Forthcoming

Nebraska Data Forthcoming Data Forthcoming

Nevada Higher Same

New Hampshire Higher Data Forthcoming

New Jersey Higher Lower

New Mexico Higher Lower

New York Higher Data Forthcoming

North Carolina Higher Higher

North Dakota Same Same

Ohio Higher Data Forthcoming

Oklahoma Higher Same

Oregon Higher Same

Pennsylvania Higher Lower

36
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Appendix A. State Assessment Participation and Performance Summary Table

(continued)

State

Change in Participation

Rates Change in Performance Levels

Rhode Island Higher Same

South Carolina Higher Data Forthcoming

South Dakota Same Higher

Tennessee Higher Data Forthcoming

Texas Same Higher

Utah Higher Higher

Vermont Same Same

Virginia Same Higher

Washington Lower Higher

West Virginia Higher Higher

Wisconsin Higher Higher

Wyoming Same Same

Unique States

American Samoa Data Forthcoming Data Forthcoming

Bureau of Indian Affairs Higher Data Forthcoming

Department of Defense No Response No Response

District of Columbia No Response No Response

Guam No Response No Response

Mariana Islands No Response No Response

Marshall Islands No Response No Response

Micronesia No Response No Response

Palau Data Forthcoming Data Forthcoming

Puerto Rico No Response No Response

U.S. Virgin Islands No Response No Response

Key: No Response = State did not respond to the question; Data Forthcoming = State

does not have results available (i.e., first year of test, testing not complete, results not compiled

at time of survey, etc).

3 7
Appendix B

Appendix B:

Accommodations Summary

Table

State

Change in

Accommodation Use

How State Collects

Information on

Accommodations Used

Students Eligible for

Accommodations

Alabama No Record No Record IEP, 504, LEP

Alaska Higher Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

Arizona No Record No Record IEP, 504, LEP

Arkansas No Record Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

California No Record Form Indicates All IEP, 504

Colorado Higher Form Indicates One Any Student with Need

Connecticut No Record Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

Delaware No Record IEP Info. Coded on Test IEP, 504, LEP

Florida Same Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

Georgia No Record Form Indicates One IEP, 504, LEP

Hawaii Higher Form Indicates All IEP, 504

Idaho Same No Record IEP, 504

Illinois No Record No Record IEP, 504

Indiana Higher Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

Iowa No Record No Record Any Student with Need

Kansas Higher Form Indicates One Any Student with Need

Kentucky Same Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

Louisiana Same Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

Maine Same IEP Info. Coded on Test Any Student with Need

Maryland Higher Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

Massachusetts Higher Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

Michigan No Record Form Indicates One IEP, 504, LEP

Minnesota Higher No Record IEP, 504, LEP

Mississippi No Record No Record IEP

Missouri Same Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

Montana No Record No Record IEP, 504, LEP

Nebraska No Record No Record IEP, 504, LEP

Nevada Higher No Record IEP, 504, LEP

New Hampshire Same Form Indicates All Any Student with Need

New Jersey Higher IEP Info. Coded on Test IEP, 504, LEP

New Mexico No Record Form Indicates All IEP

New York Higher Form Indicates All Any Student with Need

North Carolina Higher IEP Info. Coded on Test IEP, 504, LEP

North Dakota Higher IEP Info. Coded on Test Any Student with Need

Ohio Same IEP Info. Coded on Test IEP, 504

Oklahoma No Record No Record IEP, 504, LEP

Oregon No Record No Record Any Student with Need

Pennsylvania Same Form Indicates All Any Student with Need

Rhode Island Same Form Indicates All Any Student with Need

South Carolina No Record No Record IEP, 504

38
30 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Appendix B.Accommodations Summary Table (continued)

State

Change in

Accommodation Use

How State Collects

Information on

Accommodations Used

Students Eligible for

Accommodations

South Dakota Same Form Indicates One IEP, 504

Tennessee Higher Form Indicates All Any Student with Need

Texas No Record Form Indicates All Any Student with Need

Utah No Record No Record IEP, 504, LEP

Vermont Same Form Indicates All Any Student with Need

Virginia No Record Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

Washington Same Form Indicates All IEP, 504, LEP

West Virginia Higher Form Indicates One IEP, 504

Wisconsin No Record No Record IEP, 504, LEP

Wyoming Same Form Indicates All Any Student with Need

Unique States

American Samoa Higher No Record IEP

Bureau of Indian Affairs No Record No Record IEP, 504

Department of Defense No Response No Response No Response

District of Columbia No Response No Response No Response

Guam No Response No Response No Response

Mariana Islands No Response No Response No Response

Marshall Islands No Response No Response No Response

Micronesia No Response No Response No Response

Palau No Record IEP Info. Coded on Test IEP

Puerto Rico No Response No Response No Response

U.S. Virgin Islands No Response No Response No Response

Key: No Record = State does not collect the information; No Response = State did not respond to the question

3 9
Appendix C

Appendix C:

Alternate Assessment Summary

Table

State Standards Approach

Student

Performance

Measures

System

Performance

Measures Scorers

Performance

Descriptors

Alabama Skills Linked Checklist a, b, c, d None a, b, e No Decision

Alaska Standards +

Skills

Evidence a, b, c, d a, b, c, d, e a, b, c, d,

Other

Same

Arizona State

Standards

Combination a, c, d No Decision No Decision Different

Arkansas State

Standards

Evidence a, c b, c c Different

California Skills Linked Combination a, b, c b, c, d a Different

Colorado State

Standards

Performance a, c a, b, c, e a, e DifferentConnecticut Skills Linked Checklist a, c, d None e Same/Different

Delaware Standards +

Skills

Evidence a, b, c, d a, b, c, d, e b, c, d Same

Florida Skills Linked Combination a, c, d a,b,c a No Decision

Georgia Skills Only IEP Analysis a, b, c, d, e No Response a Different

Hawaii State

Standards

Evidence a a, b, c, e a Different

Idaho State

Standards

Combination a None a, Other Different

Illinois State

Standards

Evidence b a, b e No Decision

Indiana Standards +

Skills

Evidence a, b, c Other a Different

Iowa LEA Standards Evidence a, b Other Other Different

Kansas Standards +

Skills

Evidence a, b, c a, b, c, d e Same

Kentucky State

Standards

Evidence a, b, c, d a, b, c, d, e a, c, e Same

Louisiana Standards +

Skills

Performance a, c, d None a, b, e Different

Maine State

Standards

Evidence a a, b, c c Same

Maryland Skills Linked Combination a, b, c a, b, c, d, e a, b, c Different

Massachusetts Skills Linked Evidence a, c, d, e Other c Same/Different

Michigan State

Standards

Performance a, c No Response Other No Decision

Minnesota Standards +

Skills

Checklist a, b, c, d a, b, c, d, e a Different

Mississippi Skills Only Checklist b No Decision b Same

Missouri State

Standards

Evidence b, c, d b c No Decision

Montana State

Standards

Checklist a a a, Other Same

Nebraska Skills Only Checklist a, b, c, d, e a. b. c a Same

Nevada Standards +

Skills

Checklist a, c, d Other a Different

4 0
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Appendix C.Alternate Assessment Summary Table (continued)

State Standards Approach

Student

Performance

Measures

System

Performance

Measures Scorers

Performance

Descriptors

New Hampshire State

Standards

Evidence a, b, c a, b, c, e c Same

New Jersey State

Standards

Evidence e No Decision c Different

New Mexico Skills Linked Checklist a, c None e Same

New York State

Standards

No Decision a, b, c, d a, b No Decision Same

North Carolina Skills Linked Evidence a, b e e Same

North Dakota Standards +

Skills

Evidence a, b, c None No Decision No Decision

Ohio Skills Only IEP Analysis b a, b, c, d, e Other Different

Oklahoma Standards +

Skills

Evidence a, c, d a, b, c, e c Same

Oregon State

Standards

Combination e b, c a, Other Same

Pennsylvania State

Standards

Performance a, c c c, d, e Same/Different

Rhode Island State

Standards

Evidence a, c a, c c Same

South Carolina Skills Linked Evidence a Other b Different

South Dakota Skills Linked Checklist a, b Other a, Other Different

Tennessee Skills Linked Evidence c a, b, c, d, e b, d Same

Texas IEP Decision Combination e Other e No Decision

Utah Skills Linked IEP Analysis b Other a, d Same

Vermont Skills Linked Evidence a, b Other No Decision Same

Virginia Skills Linked Evidence a, c, d No Response e No Decision

Washington State

Standards

No Decision a, b a No Decision No Decision

West Virginia State

Standards

Evidence a, c, d None a, Other Different

Wisconsin IEP Decision Combination e No Response a No Levels

Wyoming State

Standards

Evidence a, c None a, Other Different

Unique States

American Samoa Skills Linked Checklist a, c None No Decision No Decision

Bureau of Indian

Affairs

No Decision No Decision No Decision No Decision No Decision No Decision

Department of

Defense

No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

District of

Columbia

No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Guam No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response Mariana Islands No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Marshall Islands No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Micronesia No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Palau No Decision No Decision No Decision None No Decision No Decision

Puerto Rico No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

U.S. Virgin Islands No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response
Appendix C

Appendix C.Alternate Assessment Summary Table (continued)

Key: No Decision = State has not made a decision; No Response = State did not respond to

the question.

Standard: State Standards = State standards (may be expanded); Standards + Skills = State

standards plus functional skills; Skills linked = Functional skills linked back to state standards;

Skills only= Functional skills only, no link to state standards; IEP Decision = Decision about

standards is up to IEP team.

Approach: Evidence = Body of Evidence/Portfolio; Checklist = Checklist/Rating Scale; Combination = Combination of strategies listed; Performance = Specific performance assessment;

IEP Analysis = Analysis of I EP goals.

Student Performance Measures: a=skilVcompetence level; b=degree of progress; c=level of

competence; d=ability to generalize; e=other; None = No system performance measures.

System Performance Measures a=staff support; b=variety of settings; c=appropriateness (age

appropriate, challenging, authentic); d=parent satisfaction; e=participation in general education.

Scorers: a = student's teacher; b = teachers in district; c = teachers from other districts; d = state

agency; e = test contractor.

4 2
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Appendix D:

Reporting Summary Table

State

Approved

Accommodations

Non-approved

Accommodations

Out-of-Level

Testing

Alternate

Assessment No Participation Alabama No Decision Separate Separate Separate Not Counted

Alaska Aggregated Separate None Separate Other

Arizona Aggregated Separate Separate Separate Not Counted

Arkansas Separate Aggregated None Separate No Decision

California Aggregated Counted Counted No Decision Not Counted

Colorado Aggregated Other None Separate Counted

Connecticut Aggregated No Decision Separate Counted Not Counted

Delaware Aggregated Separate Counted Separate Score Zero

Florida Separate Other None No Decision Not Counted

Georgia Aggregated, Separate Aggregated,

Separate, Counted

Aggregated Separate Other

Hawaii Aggregated Aggregated Aggregated No Decision Not Counted

Idaho Aggregated Aggregated None Other Not Counted

Illinois Aggregated Aggregated None Separate Not Counted

Indiana Aggregated, Separate Lowest Score None No Decision Other

Iowa Aggregated Not Counted Aggregated Separate Other

Kansas Aggregated Separate None Other Not Counted

Kentucky Aggregated Other None Aggregated Lowest Score

Louisiana Aggregated Aggregated, Separate Separate Separate Counted

Maine Aggregated Other None Aggregated Not Counted

Maryland Other Other None No Decision Other

Massachusetts Aggregated Aggregated None Aggregated Lowest Score

Michigan Aggregated No Decision None Other No Decision

Minnesota Aggregated Other None Separate Not Counted

Mississippi Aggregated Not Counted No Decision No Decision No Decision

Missouri Aggregated Aggregated None No Decision Other

Montana Aggregated Separate None No Decision Not Counted

Nebraska Aggregated Aggregated None Counted No Decision

Nevada Aggregated Separate None Separate Not Counted

New Hampshire Aggregated Lowest Score None Both Score Zero

New Jersey Aggregated Other None No Decision Other

New Mexico Aggregated, Separate Other None Separate Other

New York Aggregated Aggregated None No Decision Score Zero

North Carolina Aggregated Not Counted None Separate Other

North Dakota Aggregated Aggregated Aggregated No Decision Not Counted

Ohio Aggregated Counted None No Decision No Decision

Oklahoma Aggregated, Separate Other None No Decision Counted

Oregon Aggregated Separate Aggregated Separate Not Counted

Pennsylvania Aggregated Other None No Decision Not Counted

Rhode Island Aggregated Aggregated None Both Counted

South Carolina Aggregated Separate Aggregated Separate Score Zero

South Dakota Aggregated Separate None Aggregated Not Counted

Tennessee Aggregated Other None Both Not Counted

Texas Aggregated Other Aggregated No Decision Counted

Utah Aggregated Separate Separate Aggregated Not Counted

Vermont Aggregated Separate Separate Separate Score Zero

Virginia Aggregated Aggregated None Aggregated Not Counted

Washington Aggregated Counted None Counted Counted
Appendix D

Appendix D. Reporting Summary Table (continued)

State

Approved

Accommodations

Non-approved

Accommodations

Out-of-Level

Testing

Alternate.

Assessment No Participation

West Virginia Aggregated Other None No Decision Not Counted

Wisconsin Aggregated Other None Other Counted

Wyoming Aggregated Score Zero None Aggregated Score Zero

Unique States

American Samoa Separate Separate None Separate Not Counted

Bureau of Indian

Affairs

Aggregated, Separate Aggregated, Separate None No Decision Not Counted

Department of

Defense

No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

District of

Columbia

No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Guam No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Mariana Islands No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Marshall Islands No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Micronesia No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Palau No Decision No Decision No Decision No Decision No Decision

Puerto Rico No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

U.S. Virgin Islands No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Key: No Decision = State has not made a decision; No Response = State did not respond to the question;

Aggregated = Student counted as assessment participant, and actual score is aggregated with scores of all other assessment

participants; Separate = Student counted as assessment participant, but actual score is reported separately; Lowest Score = Student counted as assessment participant, and given lowest score, Score Zero = Student counted as assessment

participant, and given score of zero; Counted = Student counted as assessment participant, and no score is given; Not

Counted = Student not counted as assessment participant, and no score is given; None = This type of assessment is not

administered.
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Appendix E:

Accountability Summary Table

State

Aseessment

Pedoimance Attendance

Drop-Out

Rates

Suspension

Rates

Graduation

Rates

No

Decision Other

Alabama a b c

Alaska a b c a b a b a b

Arizona a b c a b c

Arkansas a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c

California a a a b c

Colorado a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c c Connecticut a b c a b c a b c a b c

Delaware a b c

Florida a b a b c a b c a b c c a b c

Georgia a a a b c

Hawaii a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c

Idaho a b a a b c a b c a b c c

Illinois a b a b a b c

Indiana a b a b a b c

Iowa a b c a b c b c a b c

Kansas a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c

Kentucky a b c a b c a b c a b c

Louisiana a b a b c a b c a b c

Maine a b c

Maryland a b a b a b a b a b c

Massachusetts a b c b

Michigan a b c a b c

Minnesota a b c a b c a b c a b c

Mississippi a b c

Missouri a b a b a b a b c

Montana a a a b c a

Nebraska a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c

Nevada a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c

New Hampshire a b c

New Jersey a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c

New Mexico a b c a b c a b c a b c

New York a b a b c - North Carolina a b c a b c a b

North Dakota a b a a a c

Ohio a b a b a b a b a b c

Oklahoma a b c

Oregon a b c a b c a b c a b c

Pennsylvania a b a b c

Rhode Island a b c a a a a b c

South Carolina a b c a a a a

South Dakota a b c

Tennessee a b c a b c

Texas a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c

Utah a b c

Vermont a b c a b c

Virginia a b c

Washington a b c
Appendix E

Appendix E.Accountability Summary Table (continued)

State

Assessment

Performance Attendance

Drop-Out

Rates

Suspension

Rates

Graduation

Rates

No

Decision Other

West Virginia a b c a a b c a b c a b c

Wisconsin a b a b c a b c a b c

Wyoming a b c

Unique States

American

Samoa

No Decision No Decision No

Decision

No Decision No Decision No

Decision

No

Decision

Bureau of Indian

Affairs

a, b a, b a, b a, b a, b a, b a, b

Department of

Defense

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

District of

Columbia

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

Guam No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

Mariana Islands No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

Marshall Islands No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

Micronesia No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

Palau No Decision No Decision No

Decision

No Decision No Decision No

Decision

No

Decision

Puerto Rico No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

U.S. Virgin

Islands

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

No

Response

Key: No Decision = State has not made a decision; No Response = State did not respond to the question;

a = Component of our state accountability system; b = Component that includes students with disabilities who participate in

general assessments (with accommodations as needed), c = Component that includes students with disabilities who

participate in alternate assessments.

4 6
Eg NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Appendix F:

Current Issues Summary Table

State

Out-of-Level

Testing Option

LEP Students

with Disabilities

Alternate

Assessment

Diploma Options

IEP Team

Information

Special Ed.

Referral Rates

Alabama Yes Unknown a, b, c a, b, c, d Unknown

Alaska No Unknown d a, b, c, d Unknown

Arizona Yes Participation a, c b, c, d Unknown

Arkansas No Unknown a, c b, c, d Unknown

California Yes Both c b Same

Colorado No Both a, c, d a, b, c, d Unknown

Connecticut Yes Participation a, c, d b, c, d Lower

Delaware Yes Unknown c a, b, c, d, Same

Florida No Both b b, c Unknown

Georgia Yes Participation b b, c Unknown

Hawaii Yes Unknown No Decision a, b, c, d Higher

Idaho No Unknown a b, c, d Higher

Illinois No Unknown a, b, c, d a, b, c, d Unknown

Indiana No Unknown c, d b, c, d Higher

Iowa Yes Unknown No Response Other Unknown

Kansas No Unknown a b, c, d Same

Kentucky No Both a, c b, c, d Unknown

Louisiana Yes Unknown e b, c Unknown

Maine No Both No Response b, c, d Higher

Maryland No Unknown c a, b, c, d Higher

Massachusetts No Unknown a a, b, d, c Unknown

Michigan No Unknown Unknown b, c, d Higher

Minnesota No Unknown a a, b, c, d Unknown

Mississippi Yes Unknown c a, b, c, d No response

Missouri No Unknown a, d a, b, c, d Unknown

Montana No Performance a b, c, d Unknown

Nebraska No Participation No Response a, b, c, d Unknown

Nevada No Unknown b, d a, b, c, d No response

New Hampshire No Performance Other a, b, c Same

New Jersey No Both a a, b, c, d Higher

New Mexico No Unknown a b, c, d Unknown

New York No Unknown a, b a, b, c, d Higher

North Carolina No Unknown Other b, c, d Higher

North Dakota Yes Unknown

Response

a, c, d, e a, b, c, d Unknown

Ohio No Unknown No Response a, b, c, d Same

Oklahoma No Unknown a b, c Unknown

Oregon Yes Unknown a, c, d, e a, b, c, d Higher

Pennsylvania No Unknown a b, c, d Unknown

Rhode Island No Unknown a, c, d a, b, c, d Unknown

South Carolina Yes Unknown d a, b, c, d Unknown

South Dakota No Unknown c, d b, c, d Unknown

Tennessee No Both b a, b, c, d Unknown

Texas Yes Both a a, b, c, d Same

Utah Yes Performance a, c, d b, c, d Unknown

Vermont Yes Both a b, c, d Same

Virginia No Performance b b Unknown

4 7
Appendix F

Appendix F. Current Issues SummaryTable (continued)

State

Out-of-Level

Testing Option

LEP Students

with Disabilities

Alternate

Assessment

Diploma Options

IEP Team

Information

Special Ed.

Referral Rates

Washington No Unknown No Decision b, c Same

West Virginia Yes Unknown Other b, c, d Unknown

Wisconsin No Unknown Other b, c, d Higher

Wyoming No Unknown a b, c, d Higher

Unique States

American Samoa No Unknown d a, c Same

Bureau of Indian

Affairs

No Unknown No Decision b, d Unknown

Department of Defense No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

District of Columbia No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Guam No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Mariana Islands No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Marshall Islands No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Micronesia No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Palau No Both c c Lower

Puerto Rico No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

U.S. Virgin Islands No Response No Response No Response No Response No Response

Key: No Decision = State has not made a decision; No Response = State did not respond to the question; Unknown = This

information is unavailable.

Out-of-Level Testing Option: Yes = State has out-of-level testing option; No = State does not have out-of-level testing option.

LEP Students with Disabilities: Participation = State disaggregates participation data for LEP students with disabilities;

Performance = State disaggregates performance data for LEP students with disabilities; Both = State disaggregates both

participation and performance data for LEP students with disabilities.

Alt. Assess. Diploma Options: a =regular diploma; b =special education diploma; c =certificate of completion;

d =certificate of attendance; e =certificate of achievement; f =vocational diploma.

IEP Team Information: a =Information sent to IEP team members; b =Information sent to local directors of special education

who pass it on to IEP team members; c =Workshops/training sessions; d =Information available on Internet.

48
Iliui The College of Education

& Human Development

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

4 9
a,- U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release

(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all

or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,

does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to

reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may

be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form

(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (3/2000)